Jelks v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jelks v. City of New York

132 A.D.3d 813, 17 N.Y.S.3d 882

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 21, 2015

Docket2013-10431

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 813 (Jelks v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jelks v. City of New York, 132 A.D.3d 813, 17 N.Y.S.3d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution and defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated August 21, 2013, which granted those branches of the defendants’ respective motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

It is the appellant’s obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal (see 425 E. 26th St. Owners Corp. v Beaton, 128 AD3d *814 766, 767 [2015]; Elgart v Berezovsky, 123 AD3d 970, 971 [2014]). Here, the record filed by the appellant does not contain the papers constituting the defendants’ motions to dismiss or any of the exhibits that were submitted in support of those motions. Accordingly, the record is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits regarding the appeal relating to those motions, and the appeal must be dismissed (see 425 E. 26th St. Owners Corp. v Beaton, 128 AD3d at 767).

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution and defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated August 21, 2013, which granted those branches of the defendants’ respective motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

It is the appellant’s obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal (see 425 E. 26th St. Owners Corp. v Beaton, 128 AD3d *814 766, 767 [2015]; Elgart v Berezovsky, 123 AD3d 970, 971 [2014]). Here, the record filed by the appellant does not contain the papers constituting the defendants’ motions to dismiss or any of the exhibits that were submitted in support of those motions. Accordingly, the record is inadequate to enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits regarding the appeal relating to those motions, and the appeal must be dismissed (see 425 E. 26th St. Owners Corp. v Beaton, 128 AD3d at 767).

Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 813, 17 N.Y.S.3d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jelks-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack